Testing our credulity

So.

Lance Armstrong in his comeback to cycling will not be subject to an independent drug-testing program, after all.

Anti-doping expert Don Catlin, who was to test Armstrong and post the results online, told The Associated Press that “after months of negotiations, both sides realized the program wasn't workable this year.”

Armstrong, long the subject of drug rumors despite never testing positive, still will be subject to testing by UCI, cycling's international body, and the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency.

In November, Armstrong got upset at an AP report that said the drug-test Web site he promised when he announced his return was nonexistent.

"It's a tough thing to organize,” he said at the time, “but we'll make it happen.”

I guess not.

Two things:

1) Before he made such a grandiose promise — which was done simply to boost his credibility as a clean athlete — he and Catlin should have nailed down the details.

2) I’m thinking that Greg LeMond and others who’ve suspected Armstrong of cheating will not express surprise that the extra scrutiny won’t actually be happening.

http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3900247

Et tu, A-Rod?

So.

Alex Rodriguez joins the list of baseball stars linked to performance-enhancing substances — in this case, the anabolic steroid Primobolan.

The Sports Illustrated story breaking the news is relying on two anonymous sources with access to results from Major League Baseball’s famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) 2003 urine tests, taken to determine is the league truly had a steroid problem.

In case you missed it, it turns out it did.

With Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa all tainted for one reason or another, A-Rod was baseball’s shining knight — the clean bopper who would come along and eventually erase Bonds’ career home-run record, making the mark hallowed once again.

Guess not.

Of course, it’s possible a mistake has been made and Rodriguez is getting a bad rap. He could always deny taking ’roids, claim the story is dead wrong. Asked about the report, Rodriguez replied, “You have to talk to the union. I’m not saying anything.”

Sorry, Alex. I believe you just did.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/08/sports/baseball/08arod.html?hp

Baby, we were born to fade

Bruce Springsteen’s little gig on Super Bowl Sunday got a few favorable reviews, which made me wonder what in the world some people were watching.

Springsteen’s 58 years old and looked every day of it despite all of the effort expended jumping on the piano, sliding into a camera, and whatever he was doing with his guitar. But worse than how he looked was how he sounded.

Not trusting his aging pipes, Springsteen on a few key notes didn’t throw a Hail Mary — to borrow his revamped phraseology for “Glory Days” — but settled instead for a dump-off pass.

At one point my wife opined, “The only thing that could save this set is a wardrobe malfunction.” She also noted that Steve Van Zandt “is starting to look like Mama Cass.” (hmmm … maybe Andrea Shapiro should be writing this blog.)

Sadder than the Boss and the E-Street Band were the fools who provided the scenery — the adoring crowd, who had to endure two days of rehearsal in order to be used as props. And no, they didn’t get paid. And, no, they didn’t get to watch the game. And, no, they couldn’t hear a darned thing.

And yes, as they pumped their fists with faux enthusiasm, they looked pretty pathetic.

For the view of what it was like on the field, see Rick O’Reilly’s ESPN piece (link below).

In the publicity run-up to the event, Springsteen told reporters, “We’re a bunch of old soldiers, but the band is still burning.”

Uh … no.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3883771

Do you trust this man?

I always liked Joe Torre. He seemed like a gentleman; now he seems like just another grasper.

Worried that history will focus on George Steinbrenner’s spending habits, he wants to make sure people to give him credit for the four World Series titles the Yankees won from 1996 to 2000.

Joe, we get it; we always did. We knew your situation — standing between the old man and your players — was a tough one, and that you handled it with intelligence, class and as much dignity as was possible. You didn’t need to write a book to tell us.

You certainly didn’t need to write a book in which you spilled clubhouse secrets, in which you said Alex Rodriguez was called “A-Fraud,” in which you ripped Carl Pavano, Kevin Brown, David Wells, even Carlos Beltrán — who didn’t even play for you.

And your disingenuousness now that the book is out, insisting you were just a source for Tom Verducci, whose name is also on the book jacket, isn’t helping your fading image.

I bet your young Dodger players — you know, one of those to whom you preached that what happens in the clubhouse should stay in the clubhouse — view you a lot differently today than a couple of weeks ago. I know I do.

Friday column: Three pleas, six points

Michael Phelps wants to be treated like any other 23-year-old.

“I engaged in behavior which was regrettable and demonstrated bad judgment,” Phelps said after a photo emerged showing him taking a bong hit at a college party.

“I’m 23 years old and despite the successes I’ve had in the pool, I acted in a youthful and inappropriate way, not in a manner people have come to expect from me. For this, I am sorry. I promise my fans and the public it will not happen again.”

Three points:

1) Your garden-variety 23-year-old doesn’t make millions of dollars in endorsements. Now, to be sure, Michael, the $100 million your agent said you could earn in your lifetime would be due to your gold medals, not your wholesome lifestyle. But make no mistake: Your sponsors are not paying you to advertise illegal drugs.

2) Twenty-three may be young — but it ain’t 16, either.

3) Your promise that this will not happen again is nice, except you basically promised the same thing after you were arrested on drunken-driving charges at age 19. Adding to the mix is a recent quote from an anonymous party-goer who said that Phelps was “out of control from the moment he got there.”

* * *

Roger Clemens is concerned about credibility.

This in the wake of a Washington Post story that states, “Scientific tests have linked Roger Clemens’ DNA to blood in syringes that a personal trainer says he used to inject the former star pitcher with performance-enhancing drugs, according to two sources familiar with the investigation.”

Clemens, through lawyer Rusty Hardin, is attacking anew the trustworthiness of Brian McNamee, claiming “I would be dumbfounded if any responsible person ever found this to be reliable or credible evidence in any way.”

Two points:

1) After Hardin’s thus-far dismal performance as Clemens’ attorney, I wouldn’t put great stock in his opinion.

2) After his disastrous appearance at a 2008 congressional hearing, the only person Clemens could best in a credibility contest right now is Bernie Madoff.

* * *

Barry Bonds is worried about fairness.

Bonds, though his attorneys, wants evidence showing he used performance-enhancing drugs in 2000, 2001 and 2003 tossed out of his upcoming perjury trial. His lawyers also asked that information about positive drug tests not be released to the public as it could, they said, hinder Bonds’ ability to get a fair trial.

One point: Bonds is one of the biggest cheaters (you can take that in two senses) in the history of the game, and now he’s concerned about “fairness”? Quick, somebody, an irony-meter!

Contact Jim Gordon at gjames43@msn.com.

On top of his game

You just have to love Mike Tomlin.

Bright. Organized. Driven.

His response to the question of whether the Steelers would repeat as Super Bowl champs was brilliant.

“We’re not attempting to repeat,” he said, going on to explain, “That special group of men in that locker room after the game last night is gone forever: it will be a new 53 men. A lot of the faces will be the same, but nothing stays the same in this game. The roles will change. Some will ascend, some will descend.”

By his comments, Tomlin immediately did two things: He took pressure of his next team to “repeat;” he also told his next team there’s no resting on the Super Bowl laurels of the 2008 team.

The Pittsburgh coach is young — 36 — but he is One Smart Cookie.

Who vetted this guy? Obama’s transition team?

Diving into non-sports waters …

As a high-church Episcopalian, or Anglo-Catholic — and an orthodox one at that — I rather like this Roman Catholic pontiff. But to borrow a phrase from the film The Right Stuff, Benedict XVI has screwed the pooch.

To reinstate the excommunicated Bishop Richard Williamson, who has denied the existence of the Nazi gas chambers, is a stupendous blunder. To do it without previously getting him to recant makes one wonder if the pope has lost a few miles per hour off his fastball (there’s your sports reference).

Did the Vatican, which under Benedict and the previous pontiff had reached out to the Jewish people, really think Williamson’s reinstatement — and his comments — would go unnoticed? The pope’s decision has been hammered in Israel, as one would expect, but also in Germany, and it’s pressure from Benedict’s homeland that Wednesday apparently forced him to call for Williamson to recant.

Talk about a day late and a Deutsche Mark short.

Coming at it does under pressure, the pope’s request looks insincere. If it comes, a Williamson recantation under public pressure won’t be believed. And if Williamson refuses, he gets to play the martyr to, well … whatever cause he thinks he’s serving.

The Vatican claims Benedict didn’t know about Williamson’s views on the Holocaust when he lifted the excommunication, but Williamson repeated his views in an interview just last month. To use Casey Stengel’s favorite phrase — there’s your second sports reference — you could look it up.

Today’s New York Times article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/05/world/europe/05pope.html?hp

Williamson’s interview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6C9BuXe2RM